(09-05-2021 08:41 AM)BIGDTiger Wrote: Here’s what Memphis needs. Look at what Colorado State invested in.
It's worth pointing out that CSU is not getting invited to the B12. Most reports seem to indicate we were ahead of them for consideration. Tulane also built an OCS eight years ago but aren't even in the conversation.
(09-05-2021 08:41 AM)BIGDTiger Wrote: Cincy has an OCS.
Houston has an OCS.
UCF has an OCS.
BYU had an OCS.
Memphis….no OCS….seeing a trend?
I do not see a clear trend. Of the 65 non-P5 schools, 52 of them (78%) have on-campus stadiums, including the four you mentioned above and a whole bunch of schools that will never be a target for major-conference expansion. There are many other factors to consider. The schools above also are in larger TV markets than Memphis, have larger enrollments, and larger athletic operating budgets. Your argument for an OCS as the pivotal factor in conference realignment would carry more weight if all things were equal, but they are not.
It's also worth mentioning that of those four schools, only UCF did what you're wanting Memphis to do which is to build its own brand-new OCS instead of remaining in a municipal stadium. And UCF moved from a stadium fifteen miles off campus, not from one two miles away like ours.
(09-05-2021 08:41 AM)BIGDTiger Wrote: City of Memphis leadership has played the UofM for decades. Preventing an OCS. Holding them prisoner to a city stadium. City of Memphis leadership has done nothing but run everything about Memphis into the ground. Why does the University not see itself as a separate entity and live for themselves?
Isn't this looking a gift horse in the mouth? The city built a stadium 56 years ago of a size and quality that the university could have never afforded to build at the time. The city has made improvements in the past decade - Tiger Lane, chair backs, new locker rooms, media areas, video board - very much tailored to the university's needs and preferences. It has allowed the university to have a serviceable (if not ideal) stadium without having to finance one through its own limited means.
In what way is the city holding the UofM prisoner to the stadium? For the city government to maintain its municipal stadium - through capital improvements and competitive lease structure - so that its main tenant is convinced to stay, is not "holding prisoner". The city has no power over the university to prevent it from raising money and building a stadium on campus. UofM decision-makers have decided that situation they have with the LB is preferable to investing in a new stadium. Maybe the city keeps the LB deal just good enough to motivate the school not to build its own stadium, but that's entirely different from forcing them not to do so.